MMRCDISCUSSION PAPER SERIES
No. 352

Complexity and Control:
Comparative Study of Automobiles and Electronic Products
Takahiro Fujimoto and Youngwon Park
Manufacturing Management Research Center
Faculty of Economics, The University of Tokyo
May 2011

東京大学ものづくり経営研究センター
Manufacturing Management Research Center (MMRC)
Discussion papers are in draft form distributed for purposes of comment and discussion. Contact the author for
permission when reproducing or citing any part of this paper. Copyright is held by the author.
http://merc.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/mmrc/dp/index.html

Complexity and Control:
Comparative Study of Automobiles and Electronic Products

Takahiro Fujimoto and Youngwon Park

Abstract
The aim of this paper is to analyze similarities and differences of the architectures and designing
processes for the mechanical, electronic, and software system by studying fundamentals of design logic.

This paper has analyzed sources of complexity in the design and development processes ofcomplex products of mechanics, electronics, and software and has searched for more effective
processes. In particular, this paper has asserted that a difference in design philosophy results indifficulty in integrating structural and functional designs because functional design isemphasized in designing electronic and software systems which are control systems, while
structural design is emphasized in designing mechanical systems which are controlled systems.
We found electronic control systems are used rather than a controlled system in case of
automobiles. On the other hand, electronic products are vice versa.

Keywords
Complexity, Control relationship, Mechanical System, Electronic System, Software System

Complexity and Control: Comparative Study ofAutomobiles and Electronic Products

Takahiro Fujimoto and Youngwon Park
Manufacturing Management Research Center
Faculty of Economics, The University of Tokyo
Many firms in today’s business environment utilize diverse information systems tosustain their competitive advantages. However, too often the return of investment on
information technologies is not as obvious as expected. This is particularly true withmany small and medium enterprises. This paper presents a research model andexamines how mobile display manufacturers implement their information systems forthe enhancement of supply chain performance. For the purpose of this research we
involve two firms and consider critical success factors of their information integration
practices. One successful firm which has organizational capability in IT use links its
existing database to new information systems and aligns its information system for thelarger requirements of supply chains. Another firm possesses different organizational
capabilities and accordingly shows the poor outcomes. Based on extensive interviews
with the IT executives, supply chain professionals and IT vendors within the supply
chain network of these two firms, we present our findings. Lessons and implications are
discussed.

Keywords (five words) Organizational Capability, Database Integration Capability,
Supply Chain Management, Information System, Mobile display manufacturers

11. INTRODUCTION

As consumers’ demands have become increasingly uncertain, diversified, and sophisticated,current products tend to be more complex. Further, the development periods for these products
need to be reduced. Thus, it has become difficult for today’s corporations to design anddevelop such complex products in a short period. An increase in product functions requested
by customers, quantity of structural elements such as parts corresponding to these functions,and number of correlations between the functional and structural elements lead to an increasein the number of procedures required for development. In addition, synchronization andduplication of these functions are requested, and consequently, both corresponding products
and processes have become more complex.
In particular, complexity is apparent in products consisting of a number of mechanical parts(mechanics) that need to be controlled by a number of electronic circuits (electronics), andsoftware is deeply related to such a control system. Hereafter, such products will be called“complex products of mechanics, electronics, and software.” Conventionally, “complex
products of mechanics, electronics, and software” are called “mechatronics products.” Initially,in many mechatronics products, a single mechanics was controlled by a single circuit.
However, in recent years, mechanical parts of mechatronics products have become multiple
and integrated (i.e., complex), and the role of software has also increased. For example, a car
is a complex product consisting of about 30,000 mechanical parts, and in recent years, most ofthese parts are electronically controlled. Thus, in some cases, many circuit boards are required
and their embedded software reaches over 10,000,000 steps. Some products having similarcomplexity have appeared recently in semiconductor manufacturing equipments, mobile
phones, digital home electrical appliances, and multi-function office equipments. In thesetypes of products, not only the number of functions and structures of the products and theirmutual interaction but also the different types of designing logic for mechanics, electronics,
and software are becoming complex and inter-related with each other, which seems toaccelerate the complexity of products and product development process.
Research to find a complete solution to this problem has started recently. However, it isclear that any corporation that makes a mistake with respect to this problem can facedifficulties in the future. Thus, this paper intends to analyze the source of complexity of2designing and development processes for complex products of mechanics, electronics, andsoftware, and then search for more effective processes. The causes for complexity and the
directions followed in the design of artifacts, which have become more complex, will be
examined to know how the design process, digital information technology (IT), organizational
capability, and architecture progress simultaneously. This is done by comparing IT supporting
development for electronic, mechanical, and software system design, and analyzing themaster–subordinate relationship between controls on functional and structural design, andstudying the development processes for automobile and home electrical appliances. For thispurpose, focusing upon IT supporting design and development, which is considered to be
essential in reducing product development lead-time in today’s corporations, we set a
hypothesis that development of such complex products in a short period is difficult because of
the differences in design logic of the mechanical, electronic, and embedded software systems.
In addition, master–subordinate relationships between the controls on the functional andstructural design among mechanics, electronics, and software will be analyzed. Further,
automobile and electronic products will be analyzed by comparing the master–subordinate
relationship among mechanics, electronics, and software.

2. FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS
2.1 Mutual Adaptation of Architecture, Design process, IT, and Organizational
Capability

This paper describes an exploratory research for the complex development of complex
products of mechanics, electronics, and software. A rough framework for analysis exists basedon previous researches. According to this framework, there exists a type of dynamic, mutuallyadaptive relationship (fit) among the design concept (architecture) of a product, design(development) process of the product, IT tools that support development, and organizational
capability (Fujimoto, 2003; Fujimoto, 2004; Fujimoto, 2006).

3

Figure 1. Mutual Adaptation Framework among Architecture, Design process, IT, andOrganizational Capability

2.1.1 Manufacturing, Design Information, and Product“Manufacturing (Monozukuri)” as mentioned in this paper is a broad concept that expresses
the behavior of entire corporations and industries to achieve customer satisfaction throughdesign, development, production, purchase, and sale of artifacts. This concept is a generalpurpose technology for controlling the “flow of product design information” toward customers
and includes not only production (transfer of design information to materials) but also productdevelopment (creation of design information).
“Product” refers to an artifact produced by corporations to satisfy customers. “Artifact” asmentioned here refers to all “designed” objects irrespective of their tangibility. Thus, product(artifact) in this paper is a broad concept that includes not only commodities but also services.
In any case, product refers to an object in which “design information,” expected to provide
additional value to customers, is transferred to some type of “a medium”.
4From this viewpoint, “manufacturing” in a broad sense is an entire corporate activity that
produces the “flow of design information” from the creation of design information to thetransfer to a medium and then to the transmission of a completed “product (=artifact)” tocustomers. In other words, the essence of “manufacturing” is not “creating an object” butcreating design information for an object (medium) (Fujimoto, 2003). By changing the
viewpoint from products to information, manufacturing is no longer an enclosed process
restricted to manufacturing sites at plants, but an open process in which development,purchase, production, and sales departments cooperate, involving suppliers, retailers, andcustomers as well as headquarter departments and top managements. Creating design
information is the responsibility of the development department, transferring the createddesign information to a medium (object) is the responsibility of the production department,
securing a medium on which the information is to be transferred is the responsibility of thepurchasing department, and transmitting the transferred design information to customers is the
responsibility of the sales department. Then, customers receive such design information from
corporations and consume the design information (Fujimoto, 2006). Thus, it can be inferredthat the most essential characteristic of manufacturing is not an “object or a medium” but“design.”

2.1.2 Design Process

As mentioned before, the core concept of “manufacturing,” which is a corporate activity, is“design”. “Design activity” can be defined as envisaging a relationship between the functionof an artifact and its structure prior to production of the actual object. In other words, a design
process is represented as a process for establishing a structural parameter group incorrespondence to a functional parameter group requested by customers or users of aparticular artifact (Suh, 1990).
When a product or an artifact is designed, the product function that reflects customers’
needs is divided into multiple groups of functional element and this division is indicated as amulti-stage hierarchical structure. This is known as functional design. Similarly, structure(such as shape, dimension, and material) of a product is sequentially divided into multiple
groups of structural elements (e.g., collective parts and a single-element part). This division is
described as a multi-stage hierarchical structure (e.g., a table of parts is BOM). The design of a5part at each hierarchical level can be classified as: special for the product, common within acompany, or a standard in the industry.
A mutual dependence occurs among structural elements. An “interface” is a portion forconnecting these structural elements (parts and modules). The process of designing andclassifying an interface is similar to that of a part.

2.1.3 Architecture (design concept)

A basic philosophy about disconnecting and connecting elements in the design informationof a product or an artifact is called architecture (Ulrich, 1995; Aoshima and Takeishi, 2001;
Fujimoto, 2001). Product architecture can be classified in various ways and the most importantclassifications are “modular type” and “integral type” or “open type” and “closed type”(Ulrich, 1995; Fine, 1998; Baldwin and Clark, 2000; Fujimoto, 2001). Although not describedin detail here, for a “modular-type” product or artifact, the relationship between a productfunctional element (required function) and a product structural element (component module) is
close to a one-to-one relationship, and because the interface for structural parts is common, thefunction of the entire product can be assured by combining already designed parts. In contrast,
for an “integral-type” product or artifact, the relationship between the product functional
element and product structural element is determined to correspond to multiple interrelated
needs, and a corresponding interface is unique to a specific product. Consequently, theperformance of the product is not assured until all the parts are designed optimally for eachproduct. Among the modular type, the architecture of in which the entire function of an artifact
is achieved by combining common parts within a company is called a “closed modular type.”
The architecture in which the entire function of an artifact is achieved by combining parts
designed from different companies through an industry standard interface is called an “openmodular type.”
However, actual products cannot be characterized by simple classification. Even the same
products may have different architectural characteristics depending on the location and layer(Fujimoto, 2003). Thus, it should be considered that architecture of actual products is
distributed continuously on a spectrum ranging from integral to modular. Oshika and Fujimoto(2006) evaluated some architectural characteristics subjectively using Likert scaling and they
estimated this spectrum using an integral degree index based on multivariate analysis. In
6addition, Shintaku (2003), Shintaku, et al. (2004) and Nobeoka, et al. (2006) estimated thistype of spectrum based on accumulated case studies.
As a result, for example, according to Oshika and Fujimoto (2006), automobiles and theircomponents are distributed in a layer having highest integral degree and electronic products
are distributed in a layer having lowest integral degree (or a region having highest modular
degree). On the basis of case analysis, Fujimoto (2001), Shintaku (2003), and Nobeoka, et al.
(2006), selected a Japanese automobile as a typical product of the closed integral-typearchitecture and a desktop PC as a typical example of the open modular type. Their research
addresses that a number of digital home electrical appliances have architectural characteristics
close to that of the modular type.
In general, in the integral-type product, structural design is performed within strict
constraint conditions, such as required performance and tradeoff between its structure andfunction. For example, assuming that there is a market need, small mechanical products thathave severe restrictions on weight, strength, and volume and analog-type products in which
structural and functional design need to be expressed by a continuous quantity tend to be close
to the integral type (Nishimura, 2004).
Thus, integral-type assembled products tend to have a high ratio of custom design parts
unique to that product and a high ratio of parts that are based on designs within the company
and contain a number of analog basis and mechanical parts. In contrast to integral-type
products, modular-type products are assumed to have a high ratio of standard general-purpose
parts in the industry, common parts within the company, and digital basis andelectrical/electronic parts. For example, the ratio of electrical and electronic parts accounts for
50% or more of the product cost of PCs and digital home electrical appliances, 30% of the costfor deluxe cars, and 10% of the cost for cheap automobiles. Similarly, general-purpose partsaccount for 50% or more of the product cost for PC, 30% of the cost for home electrical white
goods, and 10% or less of the cost for deluxe cars. These are approximate criteria for
determining architecture.

2.1.4 IT Tools that Support Development and Design

IT has been increasing its presence as a tool for creating “excellent design informationflow” at development and production sites in recent years. Particularly, tools such as
7

Computer-Aided Design (CAD), Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAM), and ComputerAided Engineering (CAE) assist in product development.
Generally, in the design process, a solution (design plan) to a problem is determined. Major
factors in the design process are the search for an alternative design plan and simulation ofproblem-solving ability of each design plan. IT used primarily to support the search for adesign plan is called CAD, and IT used to support the problem-solving simulation for thedesign plan is called CAE. In particular, IT to support mold design is called CAM, which may
be considered as CAD for mold design (Ueno, 2005).
As described above, IT tools that support development assist not only in designing but alsoin simulating product performance and manufacturability by using design information of theaccumulated electronic media. As a result, prior to verification of functions andmanufacturability of a product by using an actual prototype, a virtual problem-solving cycle(design, prototype, and experimental cycle) can be conducted. This is called “front loading”
which indicates that problem solution is carried out “in advance” and is considered to be oneof the decisive means for establishing superiority in the race to develop products (Thomke andFujimoto, 2000).

2.1.5 Organizational Capability for Manufacturing

In general, organizational capability is an organizational routine (repetitive action pattern)
unique to a corporation or an organization and provides continued superiority incompetitiveness and profitability over other corporations. It is developed continuously in acompany, resulting in progress, and is difficult for other companies to copy.
If this concept is applied to the aforementioned broad concept of “manufacturing,” then“organizational capability for manufacturing” denotes an organizational capability for
producing “excellent design information flow.” That is, organizational capability denotes asystem that executes a process for creation, transfer, and transmission of design information
corresponding to customers’ needs (with flexibility) with consistently high accuracy (and highquality), high efficiency (at a low cost), and more rapidly (with a shorter lead-time) than othercompetitive companies. Therefore, this capability helps in simultaneous achievement andimprovement of QCDF. Organizational capabilities of development, purchasing, production,and sales departments are integrated and are closely interrelated (Fujimoto, 2001).
8

Toyota’s so-called production style is a typical example of such “organizational capability
for manufacturing” (Fujimoto, 1997; Fujimoto, 2003; Fujimoto, 2004), namely, it is importantto minimize “time when no creation or transfer of design information is performed, creatingsmooth flow” of design information toward customers.
Organizational capability for the design and development of products indicates capability tocreate continuously good flows of design information better than other rivals in the
aforementioned “design process for problem solving,” and in short, is an “organizational
problem finding/problem solving capability” (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991).

2.1.6 IT for Product Development and Organizational Capability

It is important to consider the relationship between IT and organizational capability withrespect to product development. In the past decade, experimental studies have obtained thefollowing conclusion by applying the aforementioned framework to IT for supporting productdesign and development. That is, introduction of cutting-edge IT tools that support
development, such as three-dimensional solid model CAD in the 90s, is not a necessary andbut a sufficient condition to establish superiority in industrial competition. In other words, IT
provides no superiority in competition unless it accompanies “organizational capability for
manufacturing,” for example, problem finding/problem solving capability through teamwork(Fujimoto, 1997; Fujimoto et al., 2002; Thomke and Fujimoto, 2000). For example, there may
be a big difference in “competitiveness of the back side” among companies, irrespective of thesame CAD package being used. This is because electronic media and groups of people form asingle design information system, such that both are closely interconnected at manufacturing
fields (Genba).

2.2 Mutual Adaptation of Process, Architecture, IT, and Organizational Capability
2.2.1 Dynamic Mutual Adaptation

Product characteristics, development processes, and IT organizational capabilities for
manufacturing tend to progress simultaneously in a mutually adaptive direction over a long
period, even if they are not mutually adaptive in a short period. This mutual adaptation
provides competitiveness, i.e., competitiveness on the front side (vitality of product) and9competitiveness in the back side (vitality of manufacturing fields). For example, in Japanesecompanies, after World War II, there was a tendency in which “integrated organizational
capability for manufacturing” based on teamwork of multi-skilled workers existed
eccentrically because of historical reasons. The fitting design concept is “integral-typearchitecture” that requires complex mutual adjustments among design elements, and IT that
supports teamwork under a cooperative environment is suitable. An easily fitting development
process includes simultaneous engineering, which requires teamwork among departments orwithin a department, front loading, and co-location (Fujimoto and Tokyo University’s
Manufacturing Management Research Center, 2007). These factors are mutually adaptive.

2.2.2 Integral-type Architecture and Integral-type Design Process

Design process and organizational configuration are related deeply with productarchitecture (PineⅡ, 1993; Ulrich, 1995; Ulrich and Eppinger, 1995; Kogut and Bowman,
1995; Sanchez and Mahoney, 1996; Chesbrough and Kusunoki, 2001; Suh, 2001; Baldwin and
Clark, 2002; Fujimoto, 2003).
In the case of integral-type architecture product development, a number of structural parts
are newly designed to keep up with a functional element group requested by customers. A
functional mutual dependence (achieving a function by cooperation of multiple parts),
dysfunctional mutual dependence (interference by factors such as electromagnetic wave) andstructural mutual dependence (such as mutual interference by part allocation) exist among
these parts. Further, many mutual interferences are generated during the design process andare found to be ex post facto. Therefore, it is important to carefully verify beforehand thestructural design of individual parts and the mutual dependence between parts. That is, for thedesign process of integral-type products, the structural design of individual parts and mutualadjustment between part designs tend to be emphasized. The mechanical design mentioned
below tends to reflect characteristics of the integral-type design process.
However, in case of complex integral products, there is a fear that performing such new
design of parts from scratch may require allocation of more man-hours for design. Then, somemeasures are adopted to reduce required man-hours.
For example, “compilation design” for part structure is available. In case of mechanicalparts, the new design can often be corrected by adding a new demand level or constraint10

condition to an existing design. The compilation design is an indispensable tool for integraltype development although some malfunctions that suppress a new idea are shown.
Another method is “narrowing down functional requisites.” In this case, customers present
only a functional requisite necessary for differentiation of products. Structure designers
complement an unspecified “hidden functional requisite” while satisfying the functional
requisites and then present the structural design to a customer. When it is approved by thecustomer, all the functional requisites are determined as ex post facto. That is, by virtually
delaying the time required for determination of all the functional requisites, complexity isabsorbed partially.
In the case of the integral-type architecture in which the entire product function depends on
optimal design of groups of parts, “the adoption” of newly designed parts for each product, i.e.,
optimization process, is important. Therefore, in the search for an alternative design plan for
the integral-type product, “adoption” of a new design plan rather than a search for any existing
design plan is a characteristic of the design process.
Thus, as the organizational capability, “the integration force” and “the adjustment force”
that perform mutual adjustment among part designs in real time are important. Then,development of CAD software, such as the mechanical system CAD, which emphasizes“optimization of new part design” is important.

2.2.3 Modular-type Architecture and distributed-type Design Process

Design of individual parts can progress independently even if a new part needs to be
designed for improvement in the function because modular-type architecture has low
functional and structural mutual dependence on individual structural elements (parts) required
to configure a product. Consequently, large adjustment load for design parameters between
parts is not applied. If a conventionally requested function is satisfactory, designed parts may
be selected from internal or external existing parts lists (library) so that no new design for thepart is produced.
In the design process for a new group of modular-type products, it is important to carefully
envisage a highly expandable interface (design rule) that is difficult to deteriorate. Thus, there
is a tendency that more man-hours in designing are allocated to establishing a preliminary
framework than in integral-type products.
11

In the “modular-type architecture” product in which completed functional-type parts
correspond to requested function of the product in a one-to-one relation, parts required for the
product are selectively purchased from a catalog of already designed parts and combined
together. That is, it is preferred to search for existing designed parts for alternative designplans. In other words, selection of designed parts or processes is important. In terms oforganizational capability, planning ability to divide a target product to completed functionalgroups of parts or a “preliminary discerning ability” in selecting existing parts that haveexcellent properties is important. Then, development of CAD that emphasizes “selection of
optimum existing designed parts” is important. For an electronic system, CAD thatemphasizes arrangement of electronic parts database (library) has a strong feature of this type.
Assuming that the development process or suitable IT is different depending on thearchitectural characteristic of each product, it is necessary to consider a fitting property foreach product. The architecture of each product is affected by the characteristics of market
needs of the product (e.g., whether limited performance is required, whether a balance
between functions is emphasized, and whether reduction of weight and size is important) or
technical characteristics of the products.

2.2.4 Information Transfer Style: Batch Transfer or Sequential Transfer

Irrespective of the architecture, a transfer style for transferring design information to a
medium (raw material) is an important product characteristic. For example, it is expected thata difference occurs in development or production between a “batch transfer style” oftransferring design information in which a number of functions are performed in a batch(upper-stream step of semiconductor production, integral mold press) and a “sequential
transfer style” of transferring design information in which discrete components divided byfunctional and structural elements are connected (printed circuit mounting process, automobile
assembly process).

2.3 Key Research Question of This Paper: Comparative Analysis of Mechanical,
Electronic, and Software Aspects

As described above, from the viewpoint of technical characteristics, architecture seems to12

be affected considerably depending on whether a target product is a “mechanical product”
designed primarily in terms of mechanics, an “electronic product” designed primarily
electronically, or a “software product” in which a function is achieved primarily by software
read in by a computer. If other conditions are constant, the electronic design using printed
circuits as its basis is expected to become a modular-type product through “a product design
process which selects existing designed parts” and is based on the sequential transfer styleusing discrete parts. On the other hand, the mechanical design is expected to become an
integral-type product through “a product design process introducing newly designed parts.”
Although assembly of the mechanical parts is executed primarily by the sequential transfer
style, the design of semiconductors is executed primarily by the batch transfer style of design
information irrespective of the architecture.
From this viewpoint, in the case of a mechanical, electronic, and software complex product,
all the aforementioned characteristics exist in a single product. Therefore, an integral
component and a modular component as well as the sequential transfer style and batch transfer
style are combined in one product. Needless to say, there is a high possibility that thesedifferent parts might be governed by different design logic, design concept, and development
process characteristics; therefore, integrating and synchronizing development processes basedon different logic is an important task for a corporation.
In conclusion, it can be said that in an environment in which mechanical products such as
automobiles, digital equipment, and precision are becoming increasingly complex, effectively
synchronizing development processes for mechanical, electronic, and software aspects alongwith IT and organizational capabilities has largely affected productivity, lead time, and design
quality of new product development. However, there are few business administration studies
that have approached this problem systematically. For example, with respect to IT, there aresome studies conducted by authors in business field, such as by Araki (2005) on themechanical system, Ueno (2005) on the electronic system, and Fujitsu and Japan’s
Manufacturing Society (2007) on synchronizing mechanics, electronics, and software.
However, academic analyses based on design logic and product development logic haverecently started.

13

Design Process
Architecture
concept)

Table 1. Previous research classification
Suh, 1990(design

IT Tools that Support
Development and Design
Organizational
Capability
for Manufacturing
Designprocess
andorganizational configuration

Academic
research
Ulrich, 1995; Aoshima and Takeishi, 2001; Academic
Fujimoto, 2001; Fine, 1998; Baldwin and research
Clark, 2000; Shintaku 2003, Shintaku, et al.,
2004; Nobeoka, et al. 2006; Oshika andFujimoto 2006; Nishimura, 2004;
Thomke and Fujimoto, 2000; Ueno, 1995
Academic andBusinessresearch
Fujimoto, 1997; Fujimoto, 2003; Fujimoto, Academic
2004; Clark and Fujimoto, 1991
research
Pine Ⅱ , 1993; Ulrich, 1995; Ulrich and Academic
Eppinger, 1995; Kogut and Bowman, 1995; research
Sanchez and Mohoney, 1996; Chesbrough andKusunoki, 2001; Suh, 2001; Baldwin and
Clark, 2002; Fujimoto, 2003
Fujimoto, 2003; Fujimoto, 2004; Fujimoto, Academic
2006
research

MutualAdaptationofArchitecture,
Designprocess,IT,
andOrganizational Capability
Comparative Analysis of Araki, 2005; Ueno, 2005; Fujitsu and Japan’s Business
Mechanical, Electronic, and Manufacturing Society, 2007.
research
Software Aspects

This paper will examine similarities and differences of the architectures and designing
processes for the mechanical, electronic, and software system by studying fundamentals ofdesign logic as a starting point of research on such complex products of mechanics, electronics,
and software. In addition, it will use and analyze actual cases of automobiles and electronic
products.

3.

DESIGN

CONCEPTAND

DESIGNPROCESSOF

MECHANICAL,ELECTRONIC, AND SOFTWARE ASPECTS

Here, characteristics of mechanical, electronic and software design are compared andanalyzed.

3.1 Mechanical Design

As mentioned above, a mechanical product is the design of a group of parts required forachieving a specified function under physical constraints such as weight, volume, and strength.
14

Because the physical constraint tends to be different for each product, design of new parts interms of their structures has been enhanced recently. In addition, design of appearance is often
an important functional element. In particular, when a customer requests for some function
and design performance is high, mechanical products are likely to have integral-typearchitecture.
Therefore, describing functions of a product logically alone cannot result in structuraldesign of each part. That is, a logically assumed sequence from the completion of functional
design to the transfer to structural design is hardly carried out completely.
For example, in case of automobiles, functional design is carried out by narrowing down
key points to present a simple functional requisite, which is followed by detailed structuraldesign. Then, a prototype is produced based on the detailed design, and functional verification
is carried out to complement the functional design as ex post facto. At the initial basic design
stage, an approximate structural design (layout) and a design sketch as well as design of thefunctional requisite are presented on an upper stream of development process so that thefunctional and structural design are likely to be combined. Further, in the case of mechanicaldesign, parts having weight and volume are connected mechanically to maintain strength,
avoid interference between parts, and exchange kinetic energy between the parts.
Consequently, constraint conditions of structural design become very complicated. Thistendency becomes particularly evident when high performance or reduction in size and weightis requested.
In addition, because the mechanical product often has dynamic cause-and-effect relationshipbetween structure and function, it is easy to verify the function once the shape (structure) iscompleted. By presenting a structural design to a function designer or customers, hidden
functional requisites may be proposed in the reverse order. That is, presentation of some of therequested functions may be delayed until the structural design is performed.
In summary, although the design is executed sequentially in the order of functional tostructural design according to axiomatic design theory, the mechanical design has a feature
where the functional and structural designs are overlapped and combined for executing thestructural design in advance and then postponing the functional design. In particular,
mechanical products, such as automobiles, which are functionally and structurally complex,
have a remarkable tendency of this type.
In short, one characteristic of the mechanical design is placing an “emphasis on the15

structural design.” This is the reason why drawings are considered important in mechanicaldesign and the structural design is penetrated into the functional design.

3.2 Electronic Design

In short, electronic design is the design of a control system. The functional design of acontrol system can be expressed with logic circuits. General-purpose logical devices such as
AND, OR, and NOT are connected according to Boolean algebra to build an independentfunction or logic (Ogata, 1970, edited by Sawai). A relatively flat structural hierarchy (partslist) is likely to be produced because required functions are built directly from general-purpose
logic devices or logic blocks (alphabet or words if expressed with language). Further, needlessto say, at least a lower hierarchical level is likely to be of open/modular-type architecture
because the required functions are configured with general-purpose logic devices. Physicaldesign of general-purpose electronic parts or semiconductor needs to be arranged tocorrespond to logic devices and logic blocks. However, once a logic design (functional design)
is completed, expansion to the physical design may be mostly achieved by repetition, enablingeasy automation.
Therefore, in the case of electronic design, an emphasis is placed on the logical expressionof a function requested by means of a circuit design. That is, functional design (circuit design)is emphasized more than structural design (layout design). Further, another characteristic
seems to be that the sequential relationship “from functional design to structural design” ismore evident in electronic design than in mechanical design. Thus, during the initial period ofdevelopment, pressure to prepare functional design information completely may be stronger
than that for the mechanical design.

3.3 Software Design

Software design in the complex products of mechanics, electronics, and software is usually
the control software for controlling the mechanics, or is an artifact called “embedded
software.” The control system of such an artifact is divided into electronic design and software
design. A designer has the freedom to determine the division of the software into an electronic
and a software range.
16

The software performs the same role as the electronics in the control system. However, incase of electronic design, “the sequential transfer style” (assembly type) is applied by selecting
and inserting general-purpose parts into a PCB. In the case of semiconductors, the batch
transfer style (processing type) is adopted by building transistors and circuits in a batch. Thisis a remarkable difference between the electronic and software design.
Control information possessed by software is expressed on a semiconductor. Thus,
functional requisites must be provided completely as logic design information beforehand.
This information is expressed using a compiler language, which is similar to natural language.
That is, software is translated in the sequence of expression of functional symbol (language) toexpression of logic design to physical design. Software design cannot delay the presentation of
the functional requisites like the mechanical design. In this sense, software design is similar toelectronic design in terms of being equipped with the functional design; however, it is quite
different in terms of translation from the logic design to the physical design.
If the real-time request of an apparatus to be controlled is strict, interruptions are enteredinto a target software in a complex manner and the architecture of the software is likely to
become an integral type. Further, there is a tendency, in which an application software
described using an assembler rides over a CPU (semiconductor hardware), to produce anonhierarchical structure. From this viewpoint as well, the software architecture is integral
type.
If the functional request is not strict, the hierarchical structure takes the form of
CPU→OS→application or the form of CPU→OS→middleware→application, and thesoftware can be easily made modular. That is, the software architecture may be modular or
integral depending on functional request. However, a product having a strict real-time request
is more likely to be integral type.

3.4 Relationship between Functional and Structural Design

As mentioned above, the relationship between functional and structural design differ
depending on the product architecture. In particular, in mechanical development, even if thedefinition of a requested function is incomplete, requested functions that do not involve
structural design to a large extent can be defined in detail. However, such implementation isdifficult in electronic design and even more difficult in software design. There may be a17

fundamental difference in the determination of mechanical, electronic, and software
specifications. Here, relationships between the function and structure of mechanical, electronic,
and software specifications are briefly explained in Table 1.

3.4.1 Mechanical Design

The functional design can be expressed using a numerical target value group by narrowing
down key factors (specification) and using a natural language (such as unity of rider andhorse). The structural design is expressed through drawings and CAD design information. The
mechanical design indicates an actuator system of the side to be controlled, and a cause-andeffect relationship of structure→function is evident in regard to a relationship between thefunction and structure. A design process is primarily composed of the structural design and is
implemented based on drawings. The functional design is supplemented ex post facto. Thus,
the function may not be described completely as a target value.

3.4.2 Electronic Design

The functional design includes flow and circuit diagrams, which need to be described indetail. The structural design is a layout diagram of the physical design. Thus, the electronic
design is on a control side and its control target is clear. Such a cause-and-effect relationshipof function→structure is evident in regard to a relationship between the function and structure.
A design process is mainly composed of the functional design, and the structural design iscompleted by selecting parts.

3.4.3 Software Design

Conventionally, the functional design of software primarily includes design information(typically, circuit diagrams) such as Program Analysis Diagram (PAD) and flow charts. The
Unified Modeling Language (UML), which is a new expression method for standardizing
model expression methods in object-oriented software designing, presents use case diagrams(diagrams that model a relationship between a user and a requested function), class diagrams(diagrams that model relationships among objects) and state transition diagrams (flow18diagrams that model changes of state of a user).

Table 2. Comparison of Mechanical, Electronic, and Software Aspects
Functional
designStructuraldesignMechanical design
Electronic design
Expressed
witha Described completely
numerical target value using flow or circuit
group (specifications) or diagrams
natural language (such asunity of rider and horse)

Drawings, CAD design
information

Main body Actuator system to beof control
controlledMainbodies offunctional
andstructuraldesigns
Cause-andeffectrelationshipbetweenfunctionandstructure

Determined primarily by
structuraldesign.
Primarily
basedondrawings

The
cause-and-effectrelationshipofstructure→functionisevident. The functional
design is complemented
as ex post facto. The
function may not be
described completely as atarget value.
IT tool for M-CAD
designsupportSoftware design
Functional
designisconventionally describedusing PAD or flow charts.
UML presents use casediagrams, domain structural
diagrams (hierarchy), andclass diagrams (hierarchy)
Layout diagram of Structuraldesignis
physical design
expressed using sourcecode.
Control side and control Control side and control
target are naturally target are naturally evident.
evident.
Determined primarily Determined primarily by
by functional design
functional designThe
cause-and-effectrelationshipoffunction→structure isevident.

Translation
fromthefunctional design to thestructural design is partiallyautomated. For software
engineering,
requisite
definition is a key factor.
The structural design is
automated.

E-CAD

Softwaresupport tool

development

The structural design is considered as a source code. In any case, the software design is thedesign of a “control side” in the same manner as that of the electronic design, and thus, itneeds to express in detail the relationship between input and output in a controlled target, i.e.,functions. In the relationship between the functional and structural design, the functional
design is the master while the structural design is the subordinate. Once details of thefunctional design are established, translation of the functional design to the structural design(source code) is partially automated. Therefore, in software engineering, it is important todefine a functional requisite that carries out the functional design in detail. In addition, from19

this viewpoint, it can be inferred that software engineering is in contrast with mechanicaldesign that requires the structural design to be determined in detail.
The above table summarizes the relationship between mechanical, electronic, and software
designs, functional design, and structural design. Fig. 2 shows the design process of a productwith respect to its mechanical, electronic, and software aspects according to the stream offunction→structure→production by using a flow chart.
1:Conceptual
design5:
Expression
primarilyusinglanguage,requestfromcustomer,product
concept,architecture

2:Functional
design3:Structuraldesign6: Diagram

7: Sourcecode(such as flow
charts, network
diagrams, statetransition
diagrams)

9: Circuit
Designdiagram(binary)

15:
Control
10: Layout
diagram

11: Printed
circuit
board

side

(PCB)

(logical design)

12: Productspecification

4: Actual
product(artifact)
8: Conditiontransferred
to ROM

13:
Drawings,
2D CAD,
3D CAD

14: Vehicle

16:

body

Controlled
side

FIGURE 2. Relationship between Design Process of Product and Mechanical,
Electronic, and Software Aspects

4. CASE ANALYSIS

Next, the relationship between the mechanical, electronic, and software aspects and the
product architecture is discussed. Here, automobile and electronics products, which areassumed to have different architectures, will be compared. To compare Automobile withEletronics, in-depth case studies were conducted with senior executives including CEOs andproduct development managers and IT managers through our research network during several
20years. We have interviewed and discussed about complexity problem. Data collection also
involved interviews, informal documents and open archival records (newspaper reports andcorporate presentations). Collected data are classified according to our research framework
and we compared our research framework with case details.

4.1 Trend of Using IT for Product Development in the Automobile and Electronics
IndustryFirst, the trend of using IT for product development (primarily CAD, CAM, CAE) for the
automobile and electronics industry in Japan will be described (Park, et al., 2007). Regarding
the automobile industry in Japan, its product development and production capacity depend
largely on suppliers, and active participation of the suppliers in the development process
produces high competitive performance (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). Automobiles do notallow easy mutual adjustment between designs of individual parts because of severe
restrictions on the layout. For example, one of the biggest problems in development of
automobiles is interference between parts, which comprises about 70% of design modification
problems in product development (Gu and Fujimoto 2000). To solve this problem in theautomobile industry, 3-D CAD systems are installed on the development site as well as in IT,
thereby realizing front loading of QCD and concurrent engineering (Thomke and Fujimoto,2000). As a result, automobile manufacturers of Japan have succeeded in reducing the leadtime of the development of new cars from 30 to 20 months (Ueno, 2005). On the other hand,an automobile is a complex product consisting of over 20,000 parts and requiring high productintegration. Thus, coordination between assembly manufacturers and suppliers is extremely
important (Clark and Fujimoto, 1991). In particular, the ratio of electric and electronic parts
has increased because of digitalization in recent years, resulting in increased necessity of the
3-D CAD for effective product development. Thus, the degree of integrality of 3-D CAD
between assembly manufacturers and suppliers is very high. With regard to the CAD
specifications of the three major manufacturers, Toyota has introduced CATIA-V5 separatingfrom TOGO-CAD, which was developed internally, and its engine department uses ProENGINEER. Although NISSAN adopted I-DEAS of SDRC in 1995, it has been using UGS’s
NX since 2005. In contrast to other automobile manufacturers, HONDA has used CATIA since
the beginning without developing its own system internally. However, these assembly21manufacturers have not only introduced their own system but have also forced suppliers tointegrate the suppliers’ systems with their system. For example, in recent years, most designand drawing modification information of automobile manufacturers have been exchanged with
suppliers in the form of 3-D CAD data. Hence, unless suppliers have 3-D CAD compatible
with the automobile manufacturers, they often cannot participate in any developmentcompetition. Thus, such manufacturers of parts have no option but to introduce a 3-D CAD
system compatible with the automobile manufacturers to maintain business relationships withthem (Gu, 2003). Thus, introduction of the 3-D CAD system from parts manufacturers tends tobe an introduction for satisfying the basic factors of a transaction, i.e., the tendency of passive
introduction is high. Consequently, some people assert that the functions of the 3-D CAD
system have not been utilized strategically enough.
On the other hand, product life cycles (PLCs) in electronics industry are extremely short.
Consequently, a reduction of the delivery time is strictly demanded. For example, PLCs ofmobile phones and digital cameras of Casio Computer as of May 2006 are 4 and 6 months
respectively (Toriya, 2006). Further, in the electronics industry, technological innovations ofparts and installation technology are remarkable and individual projects have small size. Thus,
initially, the electronics industry’s attitude was negative towards approaching such processoriented manufacturing. The use of CAD system for electronics products has not progressedmuch because this industry deals with typical modular products and PLC is extremely short.
However, to maintain innovation in product development, which has increasingly advanced,
the focus has shifted from an aspect of controlling actual products to that of controllinginformation, and the introduction of 3-D CAD has improved (Ueno, 2005). Electronic
products are mostly constructed of general-purpose parts, and electronic manufacturers andparts suppliers tend to not use the same CAD system for the product designing process. The
electronics parts industry has no hierarchical pyramid between assembly manufacturers andsuppliers unlike that in the automobile industry. In the case of mobile phone products, someJapanese mobile phone manufacturers occasionally coordinate their system to meet therequirements of the CAD system of parts manufacturers so that Chinese parts manufacturers
can supply parts that incorporate the change from conventional 2-G closed integral type to 3-G
open modular type. Semiconductor products and electronic parts except for custom-madeproducts can be obtained and printed circuit board design and manufacturing can beoutsourced to many suppliers. This indicates that no specific supplier or gigantic production22equipment will be required to develop electronic products. For this reason, the entry barrier isso low that many companies are engaged in the development of electronic products unlike thatin the automobile industry. Because of such industrial characteristics, in the electronics
industry, where no hierarchical pyramidal relationship exists as that in the automobile industry,
the manner in which a company manufactures its products to differentiate itself from othercompanies by sharing information and process effectively with suppliers and partners is an
important issue (Ueno, 2005). As mentioned above, the characteristics of architectures forautomobiles and electronics products are different, and, consequently, the methods of using
CAD are considered different. Fujimoto (2006) described a relationship between the productarchitecture and CAD stating that in contrast to decentralized product development ofmodular-type architecture of home electrical appliances and electronics products, the integraltype architecture of automobile industry needs CAD and CAE that allow centralized productdevelopment.

Table 3. Comparison between Automobile and Home Appliance Industry
SectorRelative

Automobile industry
domestic HighHome appliance industry
Lowcompetitiveness
Generation of added value

High

Low

Quantity of parts

Over 20,000 parts

Around 1,000 parts

Ratio between exclusive and Mainly,

exclusive

parts Mainly,

general-purpose

common parts(special parts)

parts (common parts)

Development periodLong (24 months)

Short (12 months)

Manufacturing period

About 2 years

Less than a year

Quantityofproduction(per Relatively large

Relatively small

model)
Product Life Cycle (PLC)

Long

Short

4.2 Comparison of Mechanical, Electronic, and Software Controls in Automobile andElectronic Products
4.2.1 Automobile23

In the case of an automobile, which is a typical integral product, although its structuraldesign follows the entire functional design in the first step of product design, the functionaland structural design not only picture a sequence of processes because an automobile is a
product in which visual design is emphasized, but also sometimes determine their productfunction in a reverse order at a stage in which the structural design has started. The mechanicalparts of automobiles are conventionally emphasized more than their electronic parts. The
electronic parts and software embedded in those electronic parts follow the mechanical parts.
However, as application of electronics has progressed rapidly in recent years, the quantity ofelectronic parts, such as ECU, has increased so rapidly that the importance of the electronicparts and the influences of the embedded software have greatly increased. For example, thenumber of source codes of the car navigation system, which is emphasized most in automobile
electronics parts, has increased up to 5 million lines. This number is higher than the source
codes of a unit electronic product. Because the automobile industry has no option but to adopt
diversified electronics parts as well as the car navigation system, the importance of software is
expected to increase. In particular, rather than adapting to conventional internal combustion
engines, adapting to the control software in hybrid vehicle (HV), electric vehicle (EV), andsmart vehicle (SV) might be a key factor for superiority in the competition of corporations.
It can be inferred that Toyota’s recent recall problem is deeply related to complexity of the
products. With regard to this problem, Mr. Akio Toyoda, President of Toyota Motor
Corporation, and the directors of Toyota participated in a public hearing of the US Congress,
apologized to customers, and promised thorough countermeasures concerning the quality
problem. However, a fundamental cause of this recall problem can be assumed to be closely
related to the automobile production process that has become increasingly complex. While theautomobile production process has become complex in the global market, the automobile
manufacturers’ production systems are not able to follow quality controls. Japanese
automobile manufacturers cannot compete in the global market by depending only on
Japanese suppliers and may use diversified global suppliers. Although all problems concerning
controls of conventional gasoline vehicles can be cleared by testing mechanical designs, thedegree of complexity in HVs cannot be grasped sufficiently. Therefore, possible problems
originating from foreign country suppliers remain unverified. Till now, in the global
automobile business, Toyota is a front runner in the technology for producing complex
24

products. In addition, Toyota has succeeded in responding to global market needs bycontinuing to develop deluxe vehicles and vehicles requiring complex design forenvironmental protection. In advanced countries, social restrictions on vehicles may become
stricter in future. In particular, software for control has become intensely complex. Thus,
automobile manufacturers who have entered markets of advanced countries are currently
loaded with increasing demands for design, production, and quality control. Although Toyota
has maintained its front-runner position in such a “product complexity” race because of
excellent correspondence ability at its actual site, it faces greater risk than its rival companies
because of its dependence on complex products. Toyota’s strengths were changed to its
weaknesses. In Toyota’s case, there is no sign indicating that its design and capabilities at its
actual manufacturing fields have deteriorated. However, as mentioned above, the load ofdesign-related work may increase in future. It is inferred that the reason for the excessive load
relating to design, production, and quality control in these years is the shortage of manpower,
particularly in the field of quality control. This problem is not particular to Toyota alone, but isa problem which the entire automobile industry of the 21st century has faced.
The same problem occurred in B Company which was interviewed by these authors at a teststage prior to sale. This problem did not occur for suppliers who developed parts bycooperating with companies with which they had a long-term trusted relationship during theperiod in which automobile manufacturers such as Toyota expanded in the global market.
However, this problem occurred when suppliers in foreign countries were employed to
conduct business in those countries because of globalization. Most of these problems may berelated to control software. A manager of B Company mentioned that “Only managers withexperience in mechanical design lead a development organization. Although he instructs
workers about development by considering mechanical, electronic, and software aspects
during a product-development period, they don’t know control software at all.”

4.2.2 Electronic Products

In contrast to automobiles, in the case of electronic products, electronic parts lead the entire
product design and the importance of electronic parts is higher than mechanical parts such as
design parts. In particular, as small products with diversified functions have increased inrecent years, the importance of electronic parts has become greater than the mechanical parts.
25Consequently, the importance of embedded software for controlling the electronic parts has
greatly increased. The source code contains 10 million lines for a mobile phone called FOMAof NTT Docomo, 6 million lines for a DVD player, and 4 million lines for a Flat panel TV.
These are specific examples concerning the importance of software. When considering design
cost, software occupies 60% for the DVD recorder and 80% for the mobile phone (Fujitsu
Japan’s Manufacturing Society, 2007). As a result, in the case of electronic products, theeffectiveness of the software design will automatically determine its competitive superiority.
However, in the case of electronic products, as attraction to product differentiation becauseof matured market has intensified recently, reductions in size and consumption energy, anddesign performance as well as importance of electronic parts become important andmechanical design is emphasized. The reason for the reduction in size and consumption
voltage for energy saving is that the parts must be arranged at high density in a small space,
thereby creating noise and heat generation problems and increasing the difficulty ofmechanical design. From a strategy of emphasizing high-quality feel and visual quality indesign, the external material has changed from plastic to magnesium alloy or from aluminum
to titan alloy, and there is demand for innovation of conventional mechanical design rule
(Fujitsu and Japan’s Manufacturing Society, 2007). Such a trend is noticeable in products inwhich reduction of size is a key differentiating factor.

Table 4. Product Type and Importance of Mechanical, Electronic, and Software Aspects
Product

Importance of mechanical, electronic, and software
aspects

Automobile (integral product)

Mechanics > Electronics > Software

Electronic products (modular product)

Mechanics < Electronics < Software

5. IMPLICATION: WORKING HYPOTHESESThis paper has analyzed sources of complexity in the design and development processes ofcomplex products of mechanics, electronics, and software and has searched for more effective
processes. By focusing attention on IT (digital information technology) for design anddevelopment assistance, which seems indispensable in reducing product development leadtime in contemporary corporations, this paper has confirmed that design logic differs among26

mechanical, electronic, and software systems.
Then, by placing emphasis on the comparison of IT tools that support development for anelectronic and mechanical system and the comparison of the development process forautomobiles and electronic products, this paper has searched for directions of the artifact
design, which has become complex, to find out how the design process, architecture, IT, andorganizational capability will progress simultaneously. In case of automobile, in recent years,
electronic control systems are used rather than a controlled system, thereby generatinginteraction and tension among the mechanical, electronic, and software designs andaccelerating a tendency of complexity in product development.
In particular, this paper has insisted that a difference in design philosophy result in difficulty
in integrating structural and functional designs because functional design is emphasized indesigning electronic and software systems which are control systems, while structural design
is emphasized in designing mechanical systems which are controlled systems. Furthermore,this paper has asserted that when the product design is considered as a symbolic system which
represents an artifact, differences in selected symbol systems and translation timings exist
between the mechanical and electronic system. In addition, it showed that when these designs
are carried out concurrently, a difference in the timing of information exchange occurs.
However, this paper provides a beginning for research in the design of artifacts that havebecome increasingly complex. Therefore, this paper is exploratory and tries to establish
hypotheses. Although this research is still preliminary and has many issues that need further
research, we present the following provisional conclusions and countermeasures with respect
to complexity of the artifacts in the automobile and electronics product sectors that can beused by corporations.

5.1 Comparison of Products in terms of Complexity and Sophistication of Functions


If the function required by customers or social constraint condition (such asenvironment and safety countermeasure) is sophisticated and complex, products thatare artifacts tend to be functionally complex. Automobiles belong to such a productcategory.
Some products cope with such functional complexity and sophistication

through large scale modularization of products. For example, PC belongs to such a27

product category.
However, as the requested function and constraint condition become stricter,modularization becomes difficult and products definitely become integral andcomplex. To allow such artifacts to function properly, the development of electronic
control system is indispensable. Automobiles belong to such a product category.


To meet demands for more complex and sophisticated functions, as in some

types of home electronic products, control and controlled system of artifacts havebeen converted from mechanical system to electronic and software systems. Further,
their entire structure is digitized to reduce the complexity of development (forexample, elimination of rotary parts). Thus, the demands for such functions can be
met.

For

example,anICrecorderanddigital

MFP(Multi-Function

Printer/Product/Peripheral) belong to this category.

5.2 Comparison of Products in terms of Mechanical, Electronic, and Software Aspects


In some products, primarily for a controlled system, a number of

mechanical parts are left as conventional for technical and physical reasons. As aresult, simultaneous progress of mechanical parts and electronic/software parts areaccelerated. Automobiles belong to such a category.


As a result, automobiles tend to simultaneously have sophistication in thedesign of the mechanics which is a controlled system and in the design of electronicand software aspects which are control systems. However, the sophistications in thedesigns of mechanical, electronic, and software aspects do not always occur in amutually cooperative manner.


Because of functional and historical reasons, these three design systems arelikely to have different design philosophies regarding the functional or structuraldesign-centered, selection of a symbol system, and the method of translation between
symbols. These factors tend to advance separately.
In the case of automobiles, a power relationship of mechanics > electronics> software is still observed from a historical reason in which automobiles are artifacts
considered as controlled systems. However, another power relationship ofmechanics < electronics < software is observed in electronic products.
28



To accelerate integration of the mechanical, electronic, and software

designs for artifacts which have become increasingly complex against the
aforementioned tendency towards separation, efforts for integration in the upperstream of development are extremely important. Such efforts include describing theartifact more accurately using natural language based on sources of design activity andsearching for a new IT which enhances teamwork design involving mechanical,
electronic, and software designers in the upper stream of development.

5.3 Construction of Coordination Ability in New Dimensional World

We expect that consumer needs will become more sophisticated and a tendency towards
stricter environment, energy, and safety constraint conditions will continue in future. Thus, thecorresponding complexity of the artifact should be considered as a long-term trend. To meetthis trend, it is necessary to conduct various countermeasures, such as front loading by usingdevelopment assistant IT (3-D CAD, CAM, CAE) and quality control engineering, upgrading
electronic control system (particularly software), modularity of product architecture andstandardization of parts, and construction of organizational capability for team development.
Even though there are few business administration studies that have approached complexity
problem systematically, academic analyses based on design logic and product development
logic have recently started. In particular, we did case study comparing cases of automobilesand electronic products. In this meaning, our study is unique and provides clues for industrial
benchmarking study in the future based on design information.
We have just started research for a synthetic solution to this problem. However, it can be
expected at least currently that companies which that mistakes in addressing this problem may
face many difficulties. This paper is a thesis that offers clues on the long-term issues
concerning the design process of artifacts or manufacturing of products.

REFERENCES

Aoshima, Y. and Takeishi, A. (2001), “Concept on Architecture”, In Business Architecture,
Fujimoto, T., Takeishi, A., and Aoshima, Y. (eds.), Yuhikaku, pp. 27-70.
Araki, H. (2005), Management of Japanese Kotodukuri, Nikkei BP.
29

Baba, Y. and K. Nobeoka, (1998), “Towards knowledge-based product development: the 3D
CAD mode of knowledge creation”, Research Policy, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 643-659.
Baldwin, C. Y. and Clark, K. B. (2000), Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity,
Cambridge: MIT Press.
Chesbrough, H. and Prencipe, A. (2008), “Networks of innovation and modularity: adynamic perspective”, International Journal of Technology Management, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp.
414-425.
Clark, K. B. and Fujimoto, T. (1991), Product Development Performance: Strategy,
Organization, and Management in the World Auto Industry, Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Fine, Charles. H. (1998), Clockspeed: Winning Industry Control in the Age of Temporary
Advantage. Perseus Book Group, MA.
Fujimoto, T and Oh, J. (2004) , “Electronic technology and parts procurement, International
Journal of Automotive Technology and Management”, Interscience Publisher, NY, Vol. 4 No.
4 pp. 324-335.
Fujimoto, T. (1997), The evolution of Manufacturing System, Yuhikaku.
Fujimoto, T. (2001), “Industry Argument on Architecture”, In Business Architecture,
Fujimoto, T., Takeishi, A., and Aoshima, Y. (eds.), Yuhikaku, pp.3-26.
Fujimoto, T. (2002), “A Note on the Product Architecture Concept, Measurement, andStrategy, Discussion Paper, CIRJE-J-78, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo (inJapanese).
Fujimoto,T.

(2003),

Noryokukochikukyoso(Capability-building

competition),

Chukousinsyo, (in Japanese). English translation: Competing to be really, really good(translated by Miller, Brian), Tokyo: International House of Japan, Tokyo.
Fujimoto, T. (2004), Japan's Manufacturing Philosophy, Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha, Tokyo(in Japanese).
Fujimoto, T. (2005), “A Note on Architecture-based Comparative Advantage”, MMRC
Discussion Paper, No. 24 (in Japanese).
Fujimoto, T. (2006), “Architecture-based Comparative Advantage in Japan and Asia”,
MMRC Discussion Paper, No. 94, pp. 1-8.
Fujimoto, T. (2006), “Product Architecture and Product Development Capabilities inAutomobile, MMRC Discussion Paper, No. 74, pp. 1-12(in Japanese).
30

Fujimoto, T. (2007), “Complexity of Artifacts and Correspondence by Manufacturers Design of Control System and Integration of Mechanical, Electronic and Software Aspects”,
MMRC Discussion Paper.
Fujimoto, T. and Nobeoka, K. (2006), “Power of continuance in competitive power
analysis: Product development and evolution of organizational capability”, Organaizational
Science, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 43-55(in Japanese).
Fujimoto, T. and Oshika, T. (2006), “Empirical Analysis of the Hypothesis of Architecturebased Competitive Advantage and International Trade Theory”, MMRC Discussion Paper,
No.71, pp. 1-21.
Fujimoto, T. and Tokyo University 21st Century COE Manufacturing Management
Research Center (2007), Manufacturing Management, Kobunsha.
Fujimoto, T.,

Nobeoka, K.,

Aoshima, Y., Takeda, Y., and Oh, J.H. (2002), “Information

technology and company organization: in the viewpoint of architecture and organization
capability”, In Electronic society and Market economy, Okuno, M., Takemura, A., andShintaku, Z. (eds.), Shinseisya(in Japanese).
Fujimoto, T., Oshika, T., Kishi, N. (2005), “Empirical Analysis on Product Architectural
measurements”, MMRC Discussion Paper, No. 26 (in Japanese).
Fujitshu (2007), Monozukuri which does not make a thing, JUSE Press.
Fujitsu and Japan’s Manufacturing Society (2007), Manufacturing without Producing any
Product, Nikkagiren Shuppannsha.
Gu, S. H. (2003), “Introduction of 3D-CAD and its Effects in Automobile Industry:3DCAD, Communication among firms, Efficiency of development, Cause and Effect model”,
Organaizational Science , Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 68-81(in Japanese).
Gu, S. H. and Fujimoto, T. (2000), “The Use of Digital Technology and its Effect on
Product Development in the Automobile Parts Industry”, CIRJE-J-27 of Discussion Paper
Series in Tokyo University, July of 2000(in Japanese).
Kogut, B. and Bowman, E. H. (1995), “Modularity and Permeability as Princiiples of
Design”, in Redesigning the Firm, edited by E. Bowman and B. Kogut, New York, NY:Oxfrod
University Press, pp.243-260.
Kusunoki, K. and Chesbrough, H. W. (2001), “Dynamic Shift of Product Architecture: Trapof Virtual Organization”, In Business Architecture, Fujimoto, T., Takeishi, A., and Aoshima, Y.
(eds.), Yuhikaku, pp.263-285.
31

Nishimura, K. (2004), Invisible structure change of Japanese economy, Nihon Keizai
Shinbunsya.
Nobeoka, T. (2006), Introduction to MOT, Nihon Keizai Shinbunsya.
Ogata, O. (1970), Introduction to Automatic Control (Zensaburo Sawai as editorial
supervisor), Ohmu-sha.
Oshika, T., and Fujimoto, T. (2006), “Positive analysis of the product architecture theory
and international trade theory”, Akamon Management Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 233-271.
Park, Y.W., Fujimoto, T., Yoshikawa, R., Hong, Paul, and Abe, T. (2007), “An Examinationof Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Usage Patterns, Product Architecture and Organizational
Capabilities: Case Illustrations from Three Electronic Manufacturers”,

PortlandInternational Conference on Management of Engineering & Technology Conference inPortland, USA (August 5 - 9, 2007).
Pine Ⅱ, J. B. (1993), Mass Customization, Cambrigde, MA: Harvard Business School.
Sanchez, R. and Mahoney, J. T. (1996), “Modularity, Flexibility, and Knowledge
Management in Product and Organization Design”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17,
pp. 63－76.
Shintaku, J. (2003), “Division of Labor with China from Standpoint of Architecture Theory”,
Japan Machine Export Union JMC journal, November, pp. 2-7.
Shintaku, J., Yoshimoto, T., and Kato, H. (2004), “Strategy of Japanese firms in Chinese
module type industry”, Akamon Management Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 95-114.
Suh, N.P. (1990), The Principles of Design, Oxford University Press, New York.
Takeda, Y. (2000), Product Realization Strategy, Hakutousyobou, 2000. (in Japanese).
Thomke, S. and Fujimoto, T.(2000), “The Effect of Front-Loading Problem Solving on
Product Development Performance”, The Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 128-142.
Toriya, K. (2006), ３D Monozukuri Innovation, Nikkei Press (in Japanese).
Ueno, Y. (2005), Practicing the digital Monozukuri ： PLM in electronic industry,
Hakujitsusha (in Japanese).
Ueno, Y., Fujimoto, T., and Park, Y.W., (2007), “Complexity of artifacts and Mechanical/
Electrical Design: Mainly in CAD use of auto and electronic industry”, MMRC Discussion
Paper, No. 179.
Ulrich, K. T. (1995), “ The Role of Product Architecture in the manufacturing Firm”,
32Research Policy, Vol. 24, pp. 419-440.
Ulrich, K. and Eppinger, S. D. (1995), Product Design and Development, McGraw-Hill.
Yamamoto, E. (2007), “Reality of EDA Tool Utilization in Automobile EMC Design”,
Electromagnetic Environment Engineering Information EMC, Mimatsu Corporation, No.229,
May, pp. 13-21.

33